However, Musk has explicitly described the system as BFR + BFS. With BFR being a giant booster, and BFS being the upper-stage cum Mars transport cum Mars lander cum Earth return vehicle.

He may have changed his mind, and we'll hopefully find out soon, but there's nothing announced yet by SpaceX that implies he has.

Musk has never said BFS is an upper stage or that it is a lander or that it is even a monolithic vehicle rather then a vehicle stack. That's what many people have chosen to interpret it as.

He has said "land the whole thing", which is not just "interpretation."

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Yes that is an interpretation, your interpreting 'thing' to refer to the entire space craft that transits between Earth and Mars and not simply the lander at atmospheric entry, every other mars lander to date has been a Matryoshka doll that disassembles during EDL, so Musk may simply be expressing their EDL plan rather then talking about the entire mars bound vehicle.

First off the quote is "I think you just land the entire thing." indicating he is far from decided. The followup question was exactly to get him to clarify what 'thing' was and if it meant the giant reusable rocket then called the MCT, he said "Maybe."

So their is absolutely no justification for interpreting this as a set in stone architecture, the monolithic rocket lander is certainly on the table given what Musk says but it's not singled out as the only configuration being considered.

2) "Land the whole thing" in response to a question on the architecture in the vicinity of Mars. Also, approach fully reusable otherwise cannot aford it, sothere will be no matrioshkas.

3) A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date.

I think they are talking about building the colony when they say "architectures in which others can partecipate". They want to provide an apt means of transportation but arguably they've always known that building a colony can't be done on themselves. It's not only a financial matter: such an endeavor requires fine engineering in almost every field, from the kitchen equipment to the toilets to planning the whole hab architecture. A colony can't be done by a single company, neither SpaceX wants to do that: Elon envisions an international effort to create an environment on Mars in which people from all around the world can come and expand. I reckon this speech will be the beginning of an effort to seek collaboration on that, to spread the word that "building a colony on Mars is not sci-fy anymore, we are providing ITS/BFR to make it possible, are you on board?" And that's why they've chosen IAC and not a webcast from Hawthorne. Anyways we'll see in 5 days.

...A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date...

Anyone have that image or a link to it? That's something I would like to see!

...A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date...

Anyone have that image or a link to it? That's something I would like to see!

...A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date...

Anyone have that image or a link to it? That's something I would like to see!

This seems like pre or early NSF MCT Team (of which Michel Lamontange is a memeber, iirc) design of a SuperDragon type. IIRC, they settled on the biconic type later. It also does not comply with the "land the whole thing" quote as interpreted around here. Moreover, the SC in this video refuels at Earth, contrary to what Bynaus describes. I don't think it's the video he saw.

...A figure shown by a user on twitter showing essentially the BFR-boosted BFS flying to Mars, refueling there and flying back to Earth entry was commented by him to be the best representation of the MCT to date...

Anyone have that image or a link to it? That's something I would like to see!

I remember seeing this, was this it? It looks like Elon's comment about it being the closest guess he's seen so far is above the linked tweet and is actually about a diagram of a Hyperloop track. I don't see a reply from Elon about the MCT diagram.

Apparently the same stuff the surface of Mars seems to be made of, seriously the single monolithic direct vehicle is an absurd interpretation of Musks incredibly vague hints and musings, any actual study of physics involved rules it out.

This particular concept is just too big, its what 15 m diameter and what 200 m tall, heck the lander at the top alone looks like it would mass 200 mt dry, the thrust ranges that Shotwell gave don't allow a vehicle this massive, I don't even think it could take off as their isn't enough thrust density at the base to lift it off the launchpad.

Not specified, they look thin but ithis concept is more about the layout of the components and the general idea.

Landing legs for such a rig would be a major component and the general idea (of anything spaceflight, let alone an ITS) would be to comply with laws of physics and waltz your design around the constraints they impose.

Not specified, they look thin but ithis concept is more about the layout of the components and the general idea.

Landing legs for such a rig would be a major component and the general idea (of anything spaceflight, let alone an ITS) would be to comply with laws of physics and waltz your design around the constraints they impose.

Do you know why people find rockets beautiful?

I've done this prevously, I thought a little about the system, but I simply didn't mind to put on the final renderings.

I'm sorry but you really haven't put much thought into the legs, they far too small, have nothing for foot pads and would immediately sink into the surface. The spread of the legs combined with the height of the vehicle and a total lack of control authority at landing means it would tip over immediately even on a concrete landing pad.

Furthermore their is no means to get cargo onto or off of the vehicle and no description of the interior at all which is where most of the important layout would actually be.

I really recommend you work to someone with some engineering knowledge and work to illustrate the designs they come up with because your just making very soft science fiction pictures right now. Their are lots of folks on the forum that would be happy to collaborate with you.

Not specified, they look thin but ithis concept is more about the layout of the components and the general idea.

Landing legs for such a rig would be a major component and the general idea (of anything spaceflight, let alone an ITS) would be to comply with laws of physics and waltz your design around the constraints they impose.

Do you know why people find rockets beautiful?

I've done this prevously, I thought a little about the system, but I simply didn't mind to put on the final renderings.

Uh... it's better, but only marginally... I suggest you try to thoughtfully brake some things in your spare time. All kinds of things, of different materials, sizes and shapes. Also, try to be creative with how you apply the force needed to brake a thing - fast, slow, point, area, etc. While you are at it, remember that force has a vector and try to visualize it.